Examples of homework high scores

Business Basics Homework #1

(1)

I do not believe that these 3 different prototypical pitches
effectively and efficiently describe good pitchers. However, I do
believe that the first prototype given, the Showrunner, is a ‘good
pitcher’ and that the second type, the Artist, certainly can get by and
succeed as a ‘good pitcher’, but the 3rd prototype, the Neophyte, I
highly doubt that this particular prototype has what it takes to be a
‘good pitcher’. I consider the first pitcher a good example of a good
pitcher, because this prototype is an intellect. Showrunners are
charismatic and can pull you into what they are telling you. They
attract their audience and have a way to make the catcher believe what
they are saying. They come over very promising and due to their
intellect, their ‘creative thinking’, their passion and their ability
to “improvise”, they give the catcher a feeling as thought they know
what they are doing and that they are a person the catcher can put his
faith into. They seem as though they are on the same level as the
catcher. Therefore the pitches given by this type has a high success
rate for being taken up by the catchers. Further, the second prototype
comes over as a successful pitcher, because of their creativity and the
passion that they exude. This type has ideas and brilliant ones as
well. These ideas do not come in the form of a singular unit, but they
are a fraction of many more ideas this person can come up with. With a
character like this, the catcher knows he can get much out of this
type. This type is like an investment, where the benefits can be reaped
from various angles. Also, because this type shows so much passion and
vision in their ideas, they pull the catcher into it. This type lives
in their own world and during a pitch they pull the catcher into it,
until it becomes their world too. They engage the catcher and because
their world becomes the catchers’ world, the idea becomes the catchers’
idea as well, and who really says “No” to their own idea. That’s why I
also believe that this type is a good pitcher. The last type I do not
consider a ‘good pitcher’, because this type sounds too gullible and
undeveloped. The research was done on Hollywood people and allegedly
Hollywood folks are known to be self-absorbed. That’s why in this
research a positive/good pitcher would be someone who gives the
Hollywood person a chance to make up the idea him-/herself and to make
it seem as though they know better/more than the pitcher. However,
outside of Hollywood I highly doubt an ignorant, innocent, gullible
character would succeed when pitching an idea. In most cases, someone
who sounds like they don’t know what they are doing or what they are
about, they rarely have a chance to succeed. Also, there is a
difference between involving the catchers in the idea making and having
them do most of it themselves. In that case you become redundant and
they wouldn’t need you anymore. My 4th prototype would be the Comrade.
A friend, an associate, someone you can work with and trust in. A
person that sounds like they are on your level and that they are
thinking in your direction. This is a person you can trust to fulfil
your mutual goal. This person is knowledgeable on the issue at hand,
but he/she can talk to the catcher like he/she’s been his (best)friend
since junior high. A ‘Comrade’-pitcher is a person who can gain the
catchers’ trust and devotion while pitching. I consider someone like
this to have a high success rate and to be a ‘good pitcher’. (10/10)

The article points out that a catcher doesn't just judge the
idea, but also judges the pitcher. If the pitcher is categorized as
incompetent then he or she will be rejected, regardless of the idea.
This places some pressure on the pitcher to not only have a good idea,
but also to appear as a person that can come up with good ideas! The
three prototypes – the showrunner, the artist and the neophyte – do not
necessarily describe good pitchers when it comes down to the content of
the pitch. But according to the author's research, they do describe
effective pitcher stereotypes. If you look like one of these three
prototypical pitchers, then your chances of your idea being liked go
up, according to the author. This can actually result in the situation
where a pitcher is so good at appearing competent, that he can convince
catchers to accept bad ideas. One thing I do not like about the
stereotypes that the author came up with, is that he seems them mostly
on how creative they appear. Perhaps because the author originally
created his theory in the movie business. In entrepreneurship, the
creativity of the pitcher is not as important as in thinking of new
movie or tv show ideas, and other traits might be more important. In
the article on “Opportunity Recognition as Pattern Recognition” it is
mentioned that inexperienced entrepreneurs might focus only on the
novelty or newness of an idea, while experienced entrepreneurs focus on
more important aspects, such as cash flow and manageable risk. I would
suspect that good catchers in the entrepreneurial world will therefore
not focus solely on creativity, but also on other aspects of the idea,
and thus also on other aspects in the pitcher. The pitcher needs to
appear like a good entrepreneur, not just as a good idea creator. For
this reason I would assume that the 'artist' type will not be as
successful in convincing catchers in the entrepreneurial world. He
might have a novel idea, but how will he make it work? Can he stay
focused and determined and deal with all the problems that will come
up? The artist stereotype might be good at making up wacky ideas, but
not at running a business or creating a good business plan. So I
wouldn't go for the artist prototype if I were to pitch my idea. A
fourth prototype could be “The Expert”. This would go to the opposite
extreme as “The Artist”, by not focusing on crazy creativity, but by
focusing on excellent entrepreneurial qualities. There is already the
showrunner, who combines some know-how with creative thinking and
passion. But in the business world, it might pay to appear less flashy,
but very knowledgeable, reliable, intelligent and experienced. To
appear like you know how to run a business, and will be able to handle
any problem that comes your way.You know how it works, you've seen it
before, and you know that the idea you have now will work. I guess that
this person could be a somewhat older person, dressed in a stylish and
professional way, looking attractive, calm and confident. Ideally the
pitcher would have some sort of reputation that would impress the
catchers. This whole appearance would have the effect of “Well, I guess
he knows what he's talking about!” on the catcher, and would in this
way convince him or her. (10/10)

If we take the assumption that we are stereotyped in less than a
second, the 3 pitches presented to us are in a way extremes and would
not be the most effective and efficient categorizations. The reason for
this is the oversimplification of the candidates. If a candidate has an
obvious category attached to them, other factors for choosing them must
be considered. The section “Catchers Beware” warns catchers to not fall
for these stereotypes, which means this topic is an issue and is
thought about before choosing the pitchers, meaning once the stereotype
is identified they can look for more subtle characteristics of the
person and even ask questions which could break loose there stereotype.
As an example let’s look at “The Showrunner”. This pitcher contains
characteristics such as charisma and wit, and practical intelligence.
They can do a beautiful presentation and show off their know-how and
even provide an implementation process, however when you looking at
this pitcher as the “complete package”, if being aware of the
stereotype, an obvious question comes into mind. Does this pitcher’s
idea meet the expectations of his actual presentation? I have looked up
there example Ron Popeil online, and I perceive him as a typical
infomercial appearance presenter who gain there sales from gullible
people sitting in front of their TVs. Meaning a person like this surly
cannot sell something, to more serious, above average intelligent
people portraying themselves as the catchers. Another example of this
is a person who sells body training equipment on TV. They don’t look
for an idea which is “innovative” and effectively improve your body but
rather an idea which shows off sex appeal on TV to catch enough buyers
in a 15 minute interval. Such things I would assume should not catch
the attention of catchers. Similar arguments can be given to artists
and neophyte. For artists there are “posers” who I think would actually
be able to fake being an artists and steal someone else’s idea during
the presentation, and if further question would be asked he/she would
crack under the pressure. For neophyte cases it seems as more
accidental situation characteristics because they can easily be
classified as a pushover. The only category which should exist is “The
Natural”. First the person shows his high intelligence and understands
of the world, looking at it from the top. Then the person presents his
idea constantly asking the “right” and in some cases rhetorical
questions to his catchers. He would answer the questions with them, and
keep the catchers in suspense until the climax. He would put them in
his place, and lead them through a deductive logical construct of his
presentation, without giving away the final “twist” of his idea until
the very end, where people would go “Oh yeahhhh”. This person would be
considered as “the mastermind”, he would show calmness, confidence,
clear vision, possibly a few jokes to show off his creative side, and
most importantly show how he is able to complete something from
beginning to the very end with a general framework in mind. (10/10)

(2)

Entrepreneurial opportunities exist because people have a
different opinion about the value of resources at a given point in
time. They develop different beliefs, because the prices do not contain
all the information necessary to make decisions about the value of the
recourses. The essence of entrepreneurship is being different, being
different because one has a different perception of the situation. This
difference leads a person to believe that prices do not accurately
represent the value of goods and services, and that the potential
exists to generate a better alternative to buying or selling resources
than the one that currently exists. Necessary is that all others must
not share her opinion, because then the prices for the resources would
go up and then there wouldn’t be entrepreneurial opportunities. For
example the entrepreneur Daniel Ox thought that to combine an online
platform with selling of fruit, he could make a profit of it. He made
profit because the subcontractor of fruit sold the fruit for less then
Daniel Ox could sell the fruit online. If the subcontractor gave the
same value to the fruit as Daniel Ox did, Daniel Ox couldn’t make a
profit of it, and there wouldn’t be an entrepreneurial opportunity. (10/10)

Entrepreneurial opportunities can exist because prices do not
contain all of the information necessary to make decisions about the
value of resources. In economic theory, prices contain all the
information from all the participants in the economy needed to allocate
resources. But the price system has limits. For example, prices do not
contain information about future goods and services, and prices don't
contain information about a way of producing or organizing that
requires technology that does not yet exist. Nor do prices contain
information about the actions of competitors in response to
entrepreneurial entry. If resource owners actually did have this
information about the future, if there was no uncertainty at all, then
the resource owners would know exactly how much their resources would
be worth to entrepreneurs in recombined form, and could adjust their
prices accordingly, thus making the entrepreneurial profit zero.
However, resource owners do not have this information, and prices do
not contain information about future events or possibilities. There is
uncertainty, and it is thanks to this uncertainty that entrepreneurial
opportunities can exist. Entrepreneurs can make decisions based on
non-price based factors and come to the conclusion that current prices
do not accurately represent the value of goods or services. The
entrepreneur can then in some way recombine resources and sell the
output at a higher price, making entrepreneurial profit. So for an
entrepreneur to perceive an opportunity, he must believe that the value
of resources is higher than the cost of obtaining and transforming
them. Furthermore, others must not share this opinion about the value
of the resources. If everybody believed that the resource was more
valuable than its price, then of course the entrepreneurial opportunity
would quickly cease to exist. So entrepreneurial opportunities can only
exist when people have different opinions or beliefs about the value of
resources. The entrepreneur must either possess different information
from others, or interpret the same information differently to find a
profitable entrepreneurial opportunity. For example, if all other
entrepreneurs think the same as you do, and there are many
entrepreneurs looking for opportunities in the same place, then the
odds of you finding a good entrepreneurial opportunity is very small.
Because the future development of resources, technology, et cetera is
uncertain, creativity is necessary for the entrepreneur to form
opinions about assumptions that can't be proven yet. The best decisions
cannot be calculated, but need to be made using creativity. Even if it
can be objectively said that new opportunities exist, an entrepreneur
must still creatively make new means-ends frameworks first.
Entrepreneurial opportunities exist because an entrepreneur can know
something the resource owner does not, so the resource owner will sell
or lease resources at a price low enough for the entrepreneur to earn a
profit on the recombination. Entrepreneurial profit is possible when
the entrepreneur can better judge things like production, new market
opportunities, new ways of producing existing products or new products
that satisfy customer wants or needs than resource owners, and could
obtain resources for less than they ultimately proved to be worth. The
entrepreneurial profit is the reward that the entrepreneur earns for
exercising judgment about a new means-ends framework. An example of
this now is Groupon. Groupon is a website, on which businesses can post
deals. The deals are at least 50% off of the normal price. The deal
only goes through when a certain number of people buys the product of
service from Groupon, and this number is determined by the business
that offers the deal. So, basically, the business is guaranteed a big
influx of new customers, and the customers get a great discount on
Groupon. The theory above can be used to explain why Groupon is
effective. The men behind Groupon made up a new means-ends framework.
They observed that people on the internet buy products in large numbers
to get discounts, and they realized that the new social media could be
utilized as a means to let people buy a certain product or service in
large numbers. This means for the buyer that he gets a good deal on the
product (at least 50% off), and it means for the company that offers
the deal through Groupon that 1) the deal is shown to thousands or even
millions; 2) the company only pays when a person actually buys the
product or service; 3) the company is guaranteed a self-determined
minimum of buyers, and only pays when this minimum of buyers is
achieved. Otherwise the deal will not go through. Because the deal
needs a minimum number of takers to go through, Groupon urges people to
tell all their friends on social networks to take the same deal.
Groupon can offer businesses advertisement, potentially creating new,
loyal customers and increasing revenues, while giving the customers a
very attractive deal. So the power of the new social media and the way
that people can communicate and work together on the internet was not
yet incorporated into current prices. The powerful ways of using these
media to sell products on mass-scale were not yet utilized. Groupon has
created this means-ends framework and now reaps the benefits, by making
huge profits. (10/10)

(3)

In his article, Shane discusses three factors that influence the
likelihood that people will gain early access to information valuable
for recognizing opportunities: prior life experience, social network
structure and information search. According to me, it is important to
gain access to information that facilitates the discovery of
opportunity; therefore, it is important to search for that information.
The logic of this argument is that people are more likely to find
information that is useful to the discovery process through deliberate
search than through random behavior. I think that searching for
information is essential in our Minor, because even though we all have
different knowledge and background, most probably very few of the
participants have work experience or other activity that gives
preferential access to the knowledge necessary for opportunity
discovery. Furthermore, not everyone can find information about
entrepreneurial opportunities through their social network either.
Therefore, in my opinion it is substantial for our Minor to search for
and find information ourselves, especially in places where others do
not look. As Shane suggests, we will be more likely to find information
useful to the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities, by searching
for relevant private information than through random efforts, or
efforts to examine public information. (9/10)

Life experience - Social networks - Search processes. I think at
this moment the most important source of information for identifying
entrepreneurial opportunities is my social network. Although my social
network is not that large it is filled with people who have
entrepreneurial spirits and are happy to discuss ideas for new
ventures. Talking to these people brings me a lot of new insights. For
example, yesterday I was telling my sister about this minor. She has
two kids and she told me that pregnant women are extremely eager to buy
stuff, because this is one of the few ways how they can express their
care for the unborn child. So pregnant women are a very interesting
target group. Wow, I would have never thought of that! I'm a good
listener so the stories, opinions, experiences and critique from people
in my social network are a source of information I'm happy to tap into. (9/10)

According to Shane everybody has access to information from 3
sources. This information makes it possible for a person to know that
an entrepreneurial opportunity is present. These 3 sources are: life
experience, social networks and search processes. In my case, social
network would be the most suitable for our minor to identify
entrepreneurial opportunities. In daily life I am constantly in contact
with many people. As each person is different I have access to a wide
variety of information. This information will be valued differently by
different people, this way I get a better sense of what is going on
around me, what could finally lead to opportunity discovery. In my
personal life I am member of several sport clubs and a student
fraternity while I am also actively involved in university. Furthermore
I frequently meet new people, which is a source of gaining information
and leads to a continual exchange of information. However this cannot
always be valued as trustworthy. Shane mentions the so called strong
ties with people you trust in his article. In my case this would be my
relatives. My relatives have great experience in different sort of
markets and areas of expertise. This provides me with information that
I highly value. In case of the minor I am sure this will be of great
help. However I believe that combining my social network with
information search is the best way to identify entrepreneurial
opportunities. (9/10)

(4)

I am most interested in practical aspects of the theory: what
can I use now? First of all, the author explains that students must be
taught to look for opportunities in the best places in the best ways,
and to connect the dots in a good way. It is only hinted at what the
best places are, and little is said about what the best way of looking
for opportunities in these places is. Knowing more about how to look in
the best places in the best ways would of course be very beneficial to
anyone looking to be an entrepreneur. According to the article, pattern
recognition or 'connecting the dots', is crucial in recognizing new
opportunities, and this can also integrate three factors important in
recognizing opportunities (searching for an idea, alertness to ideas
and previous experience). How does one become good at connecting the
dots? What it comes down to, according to the author, is mainly
experience. Through experience prototypes and exemplars are created in
our minds, as well as a general cognitive framework that can aid in
finding ideas. However, when you take a look at real life, you find
that many of the most experienced people couldn't come up with
successful entrepreneurial ideas if their lives depended on it. Even
the most capable, intelligent or successful people in a particular
field are not necessarily good entrepreneurs. In the article itself it
is also mentioned that some entrepreneurs start many businesses, but
still are not very successful, and apparently lack the good prototypes
and exemplars and so on that should be gotten from experience. Yet it
is suggested in the article that entrepreneurs-to-be should gain
experience in many fields. So to me, important and as of yet unanswered
questions are: How does one benefit the most from gained experience?
What is the quickest, best, most efficient way to a successful
entrepreneur's cognitive framework? Clearly, gaining experience for the
sake of gaining experience is not a guarantee for success. Even
repeated experience in entrepreneurial ventures is not a guarantee for
success. So apparently, some people gain experience and are capable of
using that experience to aid in pattern recognition, while others seem
to be unable to learn any lessons from experience. This is especially
important because gaining experience in many fields is VERY costly. If
there is a most efficient way for doing this, it's important to know.
Relevant and useful experience seems to be the most crucial factor that
separates good entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs or bad
entrepreneurs. The author also suggests that students could be exposed
to many examples of businesses, some successful and some not. Then they
could generate good exemplars and learn what are important features of
good businesses. This seems easy enough. Could this process be used to
generate useful exemplars in any field of interest and relevance?
Wouldn't this be a great shortcut to generating exemplars that are
normally gained from years of experience? If a program could be devised
that teaches students what works through useful examples, it could
speed up their journey to becoming a successful entrepreneur. (10/10)

Cases in Entrepreneurship homework for Week #2

(Short Answer 1)

This short phrase has rather big applications for practices of
creative management, entrepreneurship, R&D management, HRM,
information management etcetera. For example, traditional scientific
management was concerned with maximizing productivity of labor. More
recent approaches, such as SWOT analysis, emphasize minimizing threats
and weaknesses, while utilizing strengths to capitalize on
opportunities. However, both models are primarily concerned with risk
avoidance. New notions argue that managers responsible for guiding
creative teams, need not to manage creativity – i.e. they do not need
to order their subordinates to produce creative output; rather –
managers need to foster an environment which will nurture the
production of creative output by teams of creative professionals. There
is a multitude of strategic approaches to how can one manage for
creativity, you can see for example: Eisenhardt (2001), Amabile &
Khaire (2008), Kaiser et al. (2007). What most of the work has in
common, is the fact that creative teams really do need a certain level
of autonomy in which they are free to experiment, design and create.
What managers must provide, are platforms that at the same time give
teams autonomy, yet direct creativity in the spheres that the company
wants to go. In sum, I think that it is a reasonable assumption, that
if a manger wants his team to be creative he needs to give it a certain
direction, but from that point on let the team work out the way to the
given direction. However, this only applies to teams/firms where
creativity is required. One does not want to give too much creative
power to a train driver, or an assembly-worker responsible for car
air-bags. In creative teams, creativity is indeed a process, not the
outcome. (7/8)

(Short Answer 2)

To answer this I will attempt to make a complete list of the
people and companies needed to design and commercialize the VIdCard
service:
- Logo and company image creator
- Website builder
- Card designer
- Printing service
- Postal service
- Marketing partners
So far, VidCard appears to bear the characteristics of a company
needing low-complexity organizational decision making. The above listed
‘actors’ each represent their own knowledge set (N) and these knowledge
sets have a very low degree of interdependence (K factor is low),
making the venture decomposable (of low complexity). Due to its low
complexity an experimental or directional search towards the best
solutions, in the VidCard venture, will be rather easy. This
experimental search is made possible by the fact that the ‘actors’ are
independent of one another. Thus, making changes in the organization
can be done without affecting the whole system. For this venture
knowledge sharing between the actors is unnecessary because they can
perform the work we need without knowing about the other aspects of the
organization (eg. The postal service does not need to know how and why
the cards are being made to do the work outsourced to them). The
governance mode that will be most effective for our venture is markets
because that is the one best suited to low complexity decision making.
“The most significant fact about this system is the economy of
knowledge which it operates, or how little the individual participants
need to know (about other actors) in order to be able to take the right
action”. (7.5/8)

Cases in Entrepreneurship homework for Week #3

(Short Answer 1)

Overall, I think that all the information in the article is
applicable in some parts to the context of the Minor. However, there are
some parts that may seem too extreme and beyond the situations we face
during this minor. The article is in some ways too advanced and it lacks
a lot of consideration for “green” entrepreneurs—entrepreneurs who are
completely new to the game and who need to learn the very basics.
The article places a lot of emphasis on experience, which almost all of
us within this Minor will lack. The article states that we should be
familiar with the industry and that will guarantee us more success,
however most since we are all still in university, the kind of
experience this article asks for of its readers is not applicable for
us. Secondly, the article speaks of a long process for a venture that an
entrepreneur may try to begin. The article mentions how the venture and
the process of the venture can change over time, due to the venture
itself or external circumstances. This is also not applicable within the
Minor because we only have a short period of time to do all that we may
need for our venture, whereas the article leans towards a much longer
time. Though circumstances may affect us and it may change aspects of
our venture, the time that the article implies is not for us within this
minor.
Lastly, the article speaks about seeking financials from investors,
particularly “big-time” investors. For the minor seeking such investors
will be very unlikely, primarily because of the projects we are doing in
the minor. For us, most of the financial resources may need to come
from our own pockets or generous sponsors. However, finding the kind of
investors the article speaks of, us not likely for us in this Minor.
(7/8)

One thing the author seems to assume in the article on “How to
Write a Great Business Plan” is that the reader has certain beliefs
about what should be in a business plan and how one should approach the
writing of a business plan. According to the author, many of these
commonly held beliefs are wrong, and the author points out in the
article what a great business plan does look like. Since many of the
students in the Minor have very little experience with and knowledge of
writing business plans, these assumptions may be incorrect. In
explaining the details of a good business plan, the author also seems to
make the assumption that the reader is in a relatively advanced stage
both with his venture and the organization of his team, as well as with
his knowledge and experience in entrepreneurship and the industry of the
venture.
One paragraph in particular that does not fully apply to our Minor is
the part about “the people” (pages 3 and 4). It is true that the people
in our teams are very important for the success of our venture, and I
definitely believe that potential investors look at the qualities of the
team members and the team as a whole. But the author of the article
emphasizes how important it is that the members of the venture's team
know the right people and that they are familiar with the industry
players and dynamics. Extensive knowledge in the venture's type of
product or service, as well as experience in management, are highly
valued according to the author. Furthermore, it is important that the
team members have worked together successfully before.
These criteria are not realistic in the context of our Minor. Some of
the qualities we may be able to develop during the Minor: we can learn
about the industry we are in, get to know some of the “right people”,
and we can learn about our venture's type of product or service.
However, almost all of the Minor students are young students who have
not yet gathered extensive experience in entrepreneurship or management.
Second of all, the groups were formed quickly and chaotically during
the bootcamp, and the team members usually did not know each other
before the minor. Finally, the teams in the minor had to come up with a
good idea for a venture in a short period of time, and it is extremely
unlikely that all the members of a team have “extensive knowledge in the
venture's type of product or service” and so on. So this part of the
article does not apply to the context of our Minor. If anything, it
explains what we still lack and have to work on.
Later on in the article there are more examples of how the author makes
assumptions about the reader that do not apply to the students in the
Minor and their ventures. For example, the author generally assumes that
the venture has already hired employees and managers and so on. The
article talks about the venture's lawyers and accountants for example.
These are things that will probably take place after the Minor, but not
during the Minor. The author says that “management might be able to have
an impact on regulations or on industry standards through lobbying
efforts”, which again assumes a bigger and more powerful team or venture
than what we generally have in the Minor. In the article, the author
also gives examples of getting key raw materials from Namibia, or taking
evidence from the past week for the best of 50 locations and
extrapolating.
In the Minor we do not have the money, the people or the technology to
start up big, so we have to start relatively small. In the article, it
is mentioned that a venture should first start small and experiment, to
find out the true economics and risks of their venture. This is what we
CAN do during the Minor, and what will potentially help us to get to the
level where we need to be according to the article.
And of course, the piece about “Intrapreneurial ventures” does not
apply in the context of our minor, because we are entrepreneurs and do
not work inside an established company.(7/8)(Short Answer 2)

These percentages confirm the articles description of the
different kinds of entrepreneurial activities. The percentages of those
that have started a business and those that have given up are very much
higher than those that are still trying. I find this quite surprising,
because those that are still trying are not showing much intensity or
activity, however they still choose to continue with their activities,
although it clearly shows that they are not being very successful.
The activities that the minor supports are: Models/Prototype
development, Organize a start-up team, Look for facilities and
equipment, Invest our own money, A prepared plan. Besides the
prototype/model development, all these activities rank high as
activities businesses should take, within the first 5 years.
The minor does not: Look for funding or financial support, devote full
time to the project, hire employees (particularly since we do not have
any money) or actively involve sales (there might not be enough time to
guarantee this).
To continue after the minor we will definitely have to: Save money to
invest or use the other to forms of funding mentioned in the article,
because there is no business without money. Without the right amount of
money a business cannot operate, so if we want to continue after the
semester, we will definitely need future funding. Also we will have to
ensure that our product sells. These two activities show very high
percentages for continuing and starting a business. Also we might need a
license or a patent, as the article shows this is also very important
for starting business. Also we will need to buy facilities and equipment
and not just look for them. The article shows that 85% of the starting
businesses engaged in this activity.
Last we will need to file federal taxes, or taxes in general to continue
our business. This is one of the highest-ranking “Start-up indicators”
in the article with a percentage of 71%. All the other categories do not
engage in this activity, so for a continuing or a starting business my
team will also have to do this. (7.5/8)